User talk:Ermenrich

Welcome!

Hello, Ermenrich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 13:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For huge labours improving coverage of medieval German heroic narratives. Alarichall (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Grüss Gott! Warm greetings to you from the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, and the project as a whole. I see you're well versed in your field of interest expertise, and that is most welcome! Please, if you need anything, do not hesitate to drop a line at either my talk page or the WikiProject's. –Vami_IV✠ 17:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

While I'm here, I want to offer you a tool that I use myself and is verrrrry handy for my own work - it highlights Harvard Reference (simply "harv") errors, and was given to me by a member of WikiProject Military History. Go to your common.js page and edit it. Then, copy "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" and paste it into the first available line, and save your edit. –Vami_IV✠ 18:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Vami! And thank you for the kind welcome!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for doing such incredible work on Germanic traditions. I used to write quite a lot on this legends in their Scandinavian versions, and I am impressed with the high quality and scope of your work!--Berig (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Berig! I'm afraid I'll have to reduce my contributions in the near future, but I hope to keep contributing in a smaller scale in the future. And I'm always grateful for any help!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Barnstar

	German Barnstar of National Merit
	I thought it was about time to award you this for your excellent contributions to ye olde sagas, German or not. Vami_IV✠ 13:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Verfasserlexikon

Please have a look at Talk:Verfasserlexikon. A pair of (in my view, misguided) grammar zealots have been trying to force their change of wording on the article. An unbiased pair of eyes would help. If you agree with them, I'll shut up! Thanks. --Pfold (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Move dicussion on North Germanic peoples

There is an ongoing move discussion inspired by the idea that North Germanic peoples and inhabitants of Scandinavia are equivalent. Some members of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies have already expressed their opinion, but including more members like yourself would certainly be of benefit to the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry I made the wrong operation on article Russia. Thanks for your undid. A Chinese Wikipedian (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I wasn't sure what you were trying to do so I just reversed the edit.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar for your work on the "Huns" article

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This barnstar is rewarded to you for your particularly fine contribution to the Huns article! You took what was a somewhat poorly organized article, and made it much more organized! You also helped start work in improving the citations on the page. It is now much more readable thanks to you! So here's a barnstar!--Beneficii (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You did fantastic with all the Huns pages. Seriously, it's a vast improvement over my attempt to make the page accurate/coherent. MMFA (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MMFA!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ermenrich. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Pannonian Avars

Hi, please check these two recent IP edits...[1], [2] what do you think?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC))

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I don't think we know what language the Chionites spoke, though both Iranian and Turkic are possibilities. The situation is clearer with the Hephthalites. I'll revert the edits - the source for Turkic is from 1933 anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, check again here three recent IP edits...is it a "Turkic push"? Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

I've removed the Salzburg thing - it's an unpublished lecture. He's right about the Xionites though, as far as my reading says.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, no this is no "turkic push". I now included a genetic research that show that avars were a heterogenous group and there is no support for a turkic only origin. I did not know that the salzburg source was not published officially. In the german wikipedia this source is used. It is also used at the article of the avar khaganate. Greetings. 212.95.8.153 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I realize that the rules about which sources are reliable and which aren't can be a bit confusing at first. Genetics studies aren't allowed to be cited on Wikipedia except in the form of review articles because there were problems with all sorts of genetics sections popping up proving all sorts of crackpot theories. There's a problem with people (in this case Pan-Turkists) pushing their point of view on articles, so you'll please forgive us if we're a bit too vigilant.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, since hot topics were arisen, we are checking everything with more attention I think. Ermenrich, please check also this [3] edit, since also this was an issue in the near past. Sorry, I don't know which articles you already checked or not, tell me if I would draw your attention uselessly. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC))

I hadn't checked that edit, but the IP is exactly right. Tengrism is the term thrown around by Pan-Turkists to try and make it look like all these tribes worshipped a "Turkic" god. There usually isn't any proof. Someone claiming the Huns worshipped Tengri is actually how I ended up editing the Huns page.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		You joined our community only a couple of months ago, but you have improved quite a couple of articles. Thank you for your contributions. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the recognition!--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Great article creation in 'origin of the Huns'! Keep it up! P. S. — I am going to add the {{essay}} tag to the article because it feels a bit too essay-like to me. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: Thank you! What makes it like an essay and how would you suggest I fix it?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ermenrich, you know what? I made the assertion about the article being essay-like after reading selective portions of it. After rereading the article a bit more, I think it's not essay-like and will now proceed to remove the {{essay-like}} tag. Sorry for being initially wrong, though.

I'd still like for you to disambiguate some links (the one having the {{disambiguation needed}} tag), though! I may have done it myself, but, I don't consider myself an expert on Hun-related topics, so, it'd not the best course of action to take, in my opinion. Good luck and happy editing! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do and thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Holidays!

May a serene and snowy Christmas and New Years' await you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Vami IV! And to you as well!--Ermenrich (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Some odd stuff

Hi. Could you take a look at these two articles?

• Tengri: Tengri#See_also: This part: Dingir, a Sumerian word (meaning deity) that may have a similar etymology[23]
• Dingir: Lead (more neutral than above): A possible loan relation of Sumerian dingir with Turkic Tengri "sky, sky god" has been suggested by historian Mircea Eliade, but not picked up by linguists.[4]

Seems some users used outdated etymology sources and tried to connect these two gods. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my attention. I've gone ahead and removed them both. At the very least they are fringe views and not particularly notable. Probably they're part of some sort of Pan-Turkist theory about how the Sumerians were Turks/Hungarians, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Add the mentioned articles to your watchlist because it seems some users those stuff in the past. As I said before, a considerable number of Eurasian-related articles suffer from similar odd, dubious, and questionable content and disruptive leftovers. Again, I recommend reading this LTA case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 and take a look at targeted articles. Thanks and good luck! --Wario-Man (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Not interested in rewriting articles like Xionites and Hephthalite Empire? You have done good edits on Hunnic-related articles. So the other historical Eurasian/Steppe peoples might be interesting for you. Rewriting or neutralizing those articles would be very helpful for other editors. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm considering working on those articles, but I'm less sure about what reliable sources there are. Most information about them is probably in various histories of late antique Iran, I'm guessing. I know that the articles could use some revision and that there is constant edit-warring being driven by IPs on many of them. I'm just not sure where to start.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I may actually try to improve Pannonian Avars first, since I know a lot more about Europe and can judge things better.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, Massagetae may be interesting for you too. There are other editors who edit such articles. Plus not all of them are in a bad status. For example, we have good articles like Sogdia. By rewriting and neutralizing, I didn't mean complete rewriting or creating a whole new revision for each of them. Expanding, neutralizing and removing problematic content is what I mean. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Creation of the article "2019 in Germany" in English Wikipedia

Hello, Ermenrich. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Germany" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot!
123.150.182.180
14:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what an article like that would look like, especially since 2019 hasn't started yet.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Karluks

Hi,

similar as before...please check the three IP edits...I am not very sure they are ok or not...Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

He removed sourced info and made random changes, so I went ahead and reverted him.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for help

Hi,

We are looking for some small help. I created a new article en:Kithaab, es:Kithaab-a play about women rights issues- which has been copy edited and is being translated in various languages. It is under translation on your wikipedia at de:Benutzerin:IvaBerlin/Kithaab Looking for your possible help in completing translation of the article en:Kithaab to your language. If you are unable to spare time yourself then may be you like to refer the same to some other translator.

Thanking you , with warm regards

Bookku (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

re: edit on Russia

Crimea is a part of Ukraine that was ulawfully annexed and being controlled and by Russia. According to international law, it is not a part of Russian Federation.

And UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 March 2014 states that:

Noting that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014 was not authorized by Ukraine,

1. Affirms its commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders;

5. Underscores that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014, having no validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol;

The Russian annexation of Crimea is already illegal under international law. Sorry SeifED23 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Bantustan

I'm not sure, but I've reverted it to your edit, as I did at Bantustan. SeifED23 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tirgil34's edits on German WP

This guy:

• EN WP
• DE WP
• Wikimedia Commons

is the newest sock of Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34. Could you check how much disruption he has done to German WP? He edited Pamir Mountains by another account[4] but the edits are identical to SibirHusky's edits on German version of that article. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: It's difficult for me to tell honestly. In the few cases where I've checked his edits they have seemed to be supported, but I don't know if he's cherrypicking sources (probably).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

See this: Talk:Pamir_Mountains#Name/Etymology_should_be_rewritten, and can you write the related section? Because I have no idea about the main sources of those etymologies; e.g. who are Kreutzmann, Mursajew, and Satulowski? --Wario-Man (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a go.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Book of Jubilees

Grüße,

so I was updating some quotes and citations on the BoJ-article before I received your revert-notification. Admittedly my edits got somewhat way longer then previously anticipated by moi, which is counterproductive at the very least. The question I have is, why is there a need for sources when v. Reeths thesis is contradicted by several passages of the canonical bible and more importantly the Quran itself? V. Reeths thesis is that in the BoJ Moses is described as receiving a revelation through a mediator, namely an angel. He uses this argument to point to the fact that there are striking similarities between the BoJ and the Quran, when it comes to revelations via angels. The keypoint here is that the Quran in Surah 20:10-13 completely contradicts his thesis by drawing a different picture of Moses'revelation (see here https://quran.com/20/10-13?translations=20) in which Moses receives a revelation directly from God [Q20:13]("And I have chosen you, so listen to what is revealed [to you].").

Shouldn't this be at least mentioned? One of my students came with his Hausarbeit and it was odd to see how a book written by one scholar, which offers theories is treated as a fact without mentioning any (ulterior) possibilities, especially seeing how, obvious contradictions appear when comparing the Quran and the BoJ.

I'd like to hear your thoughts. --Mikka85 (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikka85 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mikka85:, you need to read the Wikipedia guidelines on original research. You can't use your own interpretation of primary sources to make an argument here, Wikipedia only summarizes other scholars' arguments. So you need to find someone else making these points, you can't yourself do it.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Just trying to recall your point here. So, when a scholar argues that in the Quran itself Moses got his revelation via an angel, but the Quranic verses actually contradict him in saying it was God himself who revealed, then despite this very clear contradiction, I'm not allowed to point this fact out until, let's say, some other scholar offers a new thesis regarding this issue? I'm saying this with the uttermost respect mate, since I saw your bio and your effort on Wiki (keep up), but when scholar XY is contradicted by the primary sources, thesis XY should be seen critically, at the very least the primary source should be mentioned in a objective way, if its not for the sake of contradicting anyone, then for the sake of validation the thesis from scholar XY. The BoJ article does not offer anything regarding this. If you look at this section here: "Abraham's role in the Book of Jubilees corresponds to Abraham's role in the Quran in more than one way(these are?) . The interpretation of biblical figures as prophets is also rooted in the Book of Jubilees(again which prophets? why is it exclusive to the Quran and to the BoJ? Are their canonical prophets who fit in here?). Also numerology, the emphasis on angels(which ones?ALL stories of the Nephilim-narrative & the fallen angel spreading corruption are completely absent in the Quran), and the symbolism of anniversaries found their way into Islam, such as the fact that many important events in the prophet's biography as presented by Ibn Ishaq happen on the same date (why is the Sira of the prophet,written and compiled centuries after the initial event of islam relevant to this case where the Quran is compared with the BoJ? This hole section doesn't even belong here). ", you see no citations and or quotes, a vague summary. Whoever wrote this simply dismissed sources and there is ZERO possibility to actually fact-check these claims because there is, again, ZERO comparison with/mention of any primary source and ironically this hole discussion is solely about similarities between the Quran and the BoJ. I don't share your view, I respect you and thank you for answering and elaborating the current issue but this article is insufficient and incorrect in so many ways and it should be our job, (ganz im Sinne der Aussprache veritas omnia vincit) to update it.--Mikka85 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If van Reeth's opinion is as beyond the pale as you imply, then it shouldn't be difficult to find scholars who disagree with him. He's published in a reputable periodical, so we have to take note of his view. I have no objection to changing the wording to "Van Reeth argues" though.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for complying with me on this matter, and yes, I think this would be a great start. Regarding your statement that there should be "traceable" work from scholars who disagree with Reeth; I'm unaware how familiar you are with classical- & quranic arabic, Islamic studies and christian theology (in combination). It is rare to find scholars who can offer all of these fields of research to begin with but given the BoJ is a (predominantly) "apocryphal" work, this makes it even more unlikely due to the fact that extensive study of apocryphal writings is not part of any Islamic Study and moves towards christian theology and bible studies. V. Reeth's work is rare and should be mentioned, but it is clear he, in his writings, shows some revisionistic views on aspects of Islam and works with a given premise (see here for more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_school_of_Islamic_studies#Criticism_of_Revisionism ). Most of the work when it comes to apocryphal writings and Islam, unfortunately, comes from these revisionistic segment. Statistically the majority of the western scholars/orientalists reject this to begin with. That is why it is incredibly hard to find anything that would support the other side. Scholars like Patricia Crone and Hans Jansen offer exactly this, but since both were/are pretty "hardcore" revisionists, this feels obsolete. Sorry for the long text. I know this has nothing to do with my initial request but it is muy importante. In the next days/weeks, with your permission of course, I'd like to give this a second try, with a more careful approach. But for today, I'm happy with the concensus we reached with "V. Reeth argues". Thanks again for your time. Mikka85 (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mikka85:, if you can show that undue weight is being given to van Reeth, you can reduce the amount of space given to this theories. If you can show that he is a fringe figure, you might be able to remove him entirely (though he appears to be published in a reputable journal, so that seems likely). In either case, though, you'll need to use the article talk page to discuss the reasoning for the change and gain consensus.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Scotsman

Hi Ermenlich. The Scotsman is a quality newspaper that has been in existence since 1817. It would usually be regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia without question. Regards Birtig (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Related stuff to that issue you posted on my talk page

• Kazakhstan: [5], [6]
• History of Kazakhstan: [7], [8] --Wario-Man (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I had been wondering about the aversion to saying Scythian myself, but it seems he has sources... I'll try to look into it some more.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Shambling Towards Hiroshima and Ammianus Marcellinus

Dear Ermenrich, Perhaps you will find delight exploring these fantasy works about giants: Shambling Towards Hiroshima and Towing Jehovah by James K. Morrow. Thank you for introducing me (in a round about way) to Ammianus Marcellinus. He was not blind to the faults of Christians or of pagans; he observed in his Res Gestae that "no wild beasts are so deadly to humans as most Christians are to each other." I was familiar with the statement but not its origin. Happy magic Miistermagico (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with personal attacks and similar issues

Since you asked about those stuff on my talk page:

• Warn the users (on their talk pages) who use personal attacks and insult you or other editors. Using Wikipedia:Twinkle makes it easier.
• If those users ignore your warning messages and continue insults/personal attacks/trolling, report them to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Remember AIV is for obvious vandalist cases. Other cases (e.g. a user with aggressive/bad behavior) should be reported to ANI.
• Checkusers review all SPI cases one by one. Clean and crystal clear evidences are helpful. For example, see this case and the submitted reports after 14 Feb 2019: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mujhideen101/Archive#14_February_2019
• Ask admins for help; e.g. how you should deal with problematic cases and other issues. Doug Weller is a helpful admin, Ask him => User talk:Doug Weller. Hope these points help you. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A Greater Appreciation of Fantasy and BIG GRAPES

Dear Ermenrich, Perhaps reading The Forgotten Beasts of Eld by Patricia A. McKillip would give you a greater appreciation and understanding of fantasy. (Numbers 13:23) When they reached the Valley of Eshkol, they cut off a branch bearing a SINGLE cluster of grapes. TWO of them carried it on a pole between them, along with some pomegranates and figs. Infers that even the grapes that grew in promised land of Canaan, the land of giants, were huge, an unlikely metaphor. Happy magic. Miistermagico (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bible, the Arabian Nights Entertainment, and Judith

Dear Ermenrich, I prefer the term fantasy rather than myth. The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night A.K.A. The Arabian Nights Entertainments contain a few stories that are also in the Bible. Theology is a firm foundation in both collections. It is odd this is not frequently recognized by inquiring readers as both originated as oral traditions to teach life lessons while enchanting the listener, as was observed by the famous adventurer Richard F. Burton. I have always cherished a wondrous story and its effect on the human mind and heart. The Book of Judith is a favorite heroic tale from the Bible. I guess my greatest interest in human belief is how thoughts affect feelings and behavior. Happy Magic Miistermagico (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ermenrich, What ever pleasures your fancy tickles me to death. Adios. Miistermagico (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I did not know that my editions change words to similar words, I use an extension of Google Chrome called The Good Place click here to see, which causes words like hell to change to here and Etc, i did not know that this Web Extension affected my Edits, thanks for letting me know about this. (User:CatechismDatabase) 20:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Giants

I expanded a bit the section the same editor added at Orontes River to counter WP:FRINGE claims. It's unclear to me if the event is notable enough to be mentioned there. Your review/input is welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:, it doesn't seem notable enough to go there - maybe it would work at Lucius Verus though? EDIT: Actually, it's already mentioned there.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to removing the new material then; if others do we'll discuss it at that article's page in time. Thanks for looking at it, —PaleoNeonate – 12:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of Jinn article

The information in the article was incorrect where it was discussing Islamic beliefs about jinn and even went as far as confusing jinn and shaytan as being different entities when it is just an evil version of the same thing. Why then was the article reverted and my changes undone when it was a factual correction that I made? CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)